Can you pinch my awful fat folds?
04-17-2013, 05:45 PM
#101
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
OK SMART ********, check this out
If a calorie is a calorie is a calorie then riddle me this?
My estimated energy density of the average piece of wood is 4 calories (kilocalories, like the kind we eat) per gram.
So why can't you just eat a half a kilogram of wood every day?
...
anyway, to counter the calorie-is-a-calorie here is a study that suggests the food behind that calorie is responsible for more or less weight gain than the calorie content will lead you to believe:
10 Foods That Drive Weight Gain and Loss Identified by Harvard - Daniel Fromson - The Atlantic
If a calorie is a calorie is a calorie then riddle me this?
My estimated energy density of the average piece of wood is 4 calories (kilocalories, like the kind we eat) per gram.
So why can't you just eat a half a kilogram of wood every day?
...
anyway, to counter the calorie-is-a-calorie here is a study that suggests the food behind that calorie is responsible for more or less weight gain than the calorie content will lead you to believe:
10 Foods That Drive Weight Gain and Loss Identified by Harvard - Daniel Fromson - The Atlantic
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 06:08 PM
#103
OK SMART ********, check this out
If a calorie is a calorie is a calorie then riddle me this?
My estimated energy density of the average piece of wood is 4 calories (kilocalories, like the kind we eat) per gram.
So why can't you just eat a half a kilogram of wood every day?
.
If a calorie is a calorie is a calorie then riddle me this?
My estimated energy density of the average piece of wood is 4 calories (kilocalories, like the kind we eat) per gram.
So why can't you just eat a half a kilogram of wood every day?
.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 06:14 PM
#106
Honestly, the mountain of evidence that argues against "a calorie is a calorie" is overwhelming, which is why I will reiterate that CICO plan is the dumbest way to approach weight loss.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 06:23 PM
#107
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
To add more... Gary Taubes is a writer who has been on the obesity/diabetes/heart disease nutrition trail for over a decade. Here's a summary from him:
The science of obesity: what do we really know about what makes us fat? An essay by Gary Taubes | BMJ
The science of obesity: what do we really know about what makes us fat? An essay by Gary Taubes | BMJ
The history of obesity research is a history of two competing hypotheses. Gary Taubes argues that the wrong hypothesis won out and that it is this hypothesis, along with substandard science, that has exacerbated the obesity crisis and the related chronic diseases. If we are to make any progress, he says, we have to look again at what really makes us fat
Since the 1950s, the conventional wisdom on obesity has been simple: it is fundamentally caused by or results from a net positive energy balance—another way of saying that we get fat because we overeat. We consume more energy than we expend. The conventional wisdom has also held, however, that efforts to cure the problem by inducing undereating or a negative energy balance—either by counselling patients to eat less or exercise more—are remarkably ineffective.
Put these two notions together and the result should be a palpable sense of cognitive dissonance. Take, for instance, The Handbook of Obesity, published in 1998 and edited by three of the most influential authorities in the field. “Dietary therapy,” it says, “remains the cornerstone of treatment and the reduction of energy intake continues to be the basis of successful weight reduction programs.” And yet it simultaneously describes the results of such dietary therapy as “poor and not long-lasting.”1
Rather than resolve this dissonance by questioning our beliefs about the cause of obesity, the tendency is to blame the public (and obese patients implicitly) for not faithfully following our advice. And we embrace the relatively new assumption that obesity must be a multifactorial and complex disorder. This makes our failures to either treat the disorder or rein in the burgeoning epidemics of obesity worldwide somehow understandable, acceptable.
Since the 1950s, the conventional wisdom on obesity has been simple: it is fundamentally caused by or results from a net positive energy balance—another way of saying that we get fat because we overeat. We consume more energy than we expend. The conventional wisdom has also held, however, that efforts to cure the problem by inducing undereating or a negative energy balance—either by counselling patients to eat less or exercise more—are remarkably ineffective.
Put these two notions together and the result should be a palpable sense of cognitive dissonance. Take, for instance, The Handbook of Obesity, published in 1998 and edited by three of the most influential authorities in the field. “Dietary therapy,” it says, “remains the cornerstone of treatment and the reduction of energy intake continues to be the basis of successful weight reduction programs.” And yet it simultaneously describes the results of such dietary therapy as “poor and not long-lasting.”1
Rather than resolve this dissonance by questioning our beliefs about the cause of obesity, the tendency is to blame the public (and obese patients implicitly) for not faithfully following our advice. And we embrace the relatively new assumption that obesity must be a multifactorial and complex disorder. This makes our failures to either treat the disorder or rein in the burgeoning epidemics of obesity worldwide somehow understandable, acceptable.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 09:28 PM
#108
LOL @ Sentic and Chilicharger pushing "a calorie is just a calorie" without bothering to understand Dr. Lustig and countless others' arguments.
How hard is it to understand that sugar and starch tend to make you feel hungrier sooner for the same number of calories (than a more fatty meal), and thus tends to make you overeat (i.e. *more calories in*). In contrast if you're fat-adapted and you take fewer % of calories from sugar and starch, you tend to be less hungry (for the same damn caloric input), so it's easier to run a caloric deficit (*fewer calories in*) and stay leaner.
Any of those stupid low-fat calorie-counting diets will make you feel miserable and hungry, and tends to lower your basal metabolic rate (*reduces caloric output*), which is counter-productive. That's why those diets fail. Not because of "lack of discipline".
I used to by somewhat hypoglycemic - got hungry, shakey, and crabby soon after a meal. After some reading, I reduced sugar and starch intake. No stupid calorie-counting and no tasteless, fat-free starchy meals. 15 lbs just melted off in 3 months, (stayed off), without feeling hungry all the time, or miserable, felt better (energy level at an even keel), and can go further between meals, without the shakes.
How hard is it to understand that sugar and starch tend to make you feel hungrier sooner for the same number of calories (than a more fatty meal), and thus tends to make you overeat (i.e. *more calories in*). In contrast if you're fat-adapted and you take fewer % of calories from sugar and starch, you tend to be less hungry (for the same damn caloric input), so it's easier to run a caloric deficit (*fewer calories in*) and stay leaner.
Any of those stupid low-fat calorie-counting diets will make you feel miserable and hungry, and tends to lower your basal metabolic rate (*reduces caloric output*), which is counter-productive. That's why those diets fail. Not because of "lack of discipline".
I used to by somewhat hypoglycemic - got hungry, shakey, and crabby soon after a meal. After some reading, I reduced sugar and starch intake. No stupid calorie-counting and no tasteless, fat-free starchy meals. 15 lbs just melted off in 3 months, (stayed off), without feeling hungry all the time, or miserable, felt better (energy level at an even keel), and can go further between meals, without the shakes.
It matters not if a certain type of calorie or food makes you hungrier or whatever, that has nothing to do with metabolism. Your body expends a certain amount of energy to run your body everyday. This is known as your basal metabolic rate. There are BMR calculators everywhere. Find one and see what it gives you. Eat under that calorie amount and you will lose weight, PERIOD. If you want to make sure you are just losing fat weight, then WORK OUT.
The argument that you should have a million different meals and meal plans and blah blah blah gloss over the fact that your body needs a certain amount of energy to function (BMR) and eating under that energy amount makes you lose weight.
Two steps if you want to lose weight:
1. Find BMR
2. Eat under that amount
Four steps if you want to lose FAT and only fat weight
1. Find BMR
2. Eat under that amount
3. Get adequate protein
4. Work out
Also I don't feel miserable and I do 24 hour fasts.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 09:36 PM
#109
I'm glad you've abandoned trying to call metabolism something thats its not.
It matters not if a certain type of calorie or food makes you hungrier or whatever, that has nothing to do with metabolism. Your body expends a certain amount of energy to run your body everyday. This is known as your basal metabolic rate. There are BMR calculators everywhere. Find one and see what it gives you. Eat under that calorie amount and you will lose weight, PERIOD. If you want to make sure you are just losing fat weight, then WORK OUT.
The argument that you should have a million different meals and meal plans and blah blah blah gloss over the fact that your body needs a certain amount of energy to function (BMR) and eating under that energy amount makes you lose weight.
Two steps if you want to lose weight:
1. Find BMR
2. Eat under that amount
Four steps if you want to lose FAT and only fat weight
1. Find BMR
2. Eat under that amount
3. Get adequate protein
4. Work out
Also I don't feel miserable and I do 24 hour fasts.
It matters not if a certain type of calorie or food makes you hungrier or whatever, that has nothing to do with metabolism. Your body expends a certain amount of energy to run your body everyday. This is known as your basal metabolic rate. There are BMR calculators everywhere. Find one and see what it gives you. Eat under that calorie amount and you will lose weight, PERIOD. If you want to make sure you are just losing fat weight, then WORK OUT.
The argument that you should have a million different meals and meal plans and blah blah blah gloss over the fact that your body needs a certain amount of energy to function (BMR) and eating under that energy amount makes you lose weight.
Two steps if you want to lose weight:
1. Find BMR
2. Eat under that amount
Four steps if you want to lose FAT and only fat weight
1. Find BMR
2. Eat under that amount
3. Get adequate protein
4. Work out
Also I don't feel miserable and I do 24 hour fasts.
How hungry you are does have an impact, as most people dont have the willpower to not eat when their stomach and brain has told them that they are about to starve to death for the last 4 hours and they only have 300 calories left in the day to eat.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 09:53 PM
#110
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 09:58 PM
#111
I want to better understand them, but regarding nitrates particular caution was taken in handling them during my food processing class' lab where we were curing meats. The NFPA 40 health hazard diamond wasn't exactly one you'd want to see on a food ingredient, even if concentrated. Again, the overall dose at the food level is very low but just something to keep in mind.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 10:05 PM
#112
To anyone looking for useful info in this thread, please avoid Chili's posts and anything related to Cal in/out bro-science.
If you really want to lose weight properly and, most importantly, keep it off, then PM me. Take advice from people who have actually done it, not x+x=y bro-science.
If you really want to lose weight properly and, most importantly, keep it off, then PM me. Take advice from people who have actually done it, not x+x=y bro-science.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 10:05 PM
#113
At least you weren't trying to make milk white. A professor here was trying to get BP (benzoyl peroxide), the chemical they use to make milk white, also a plastic polymerization agent. The FBI showed up as his office to ask some questions, apparently the small quantity he ordered would be enough to kill most of a small city's population if it was properly dispersed.
I stopped doing sensory analysis for the milk and soy milk taste tests that a lab in the Food Science department was doing when I realized they were samples with significant levels of titanium dioxide, a whitening agent.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 10:28 PM
#114
Also, nobody cares. It's still stupid, inefficient, and unhealthy to ignore macronutrient and micronutrient balance. Go eat your donuts and multivitamins and let us discuss interesting things.
This looks like a good place to point out something else that's interesting about nutrition and diet -- as it turns out, ketogenic/paleo/primal/anti-inflammatory diets have two super important benefits.
1. The reduction in chronic inflammation (normally caused by grains, sugars, oxidized fats, etc.) means that you will be much less likely to suffer from autoimmune disorders like Crohn's disease, eczema, Grave's disease, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, rheumatoid arthritis, Type 1 diabetes, along with dozens of other common disorders.
2. There's very promising evidence that ketogenic diets are ideal for preventing and also for treating cancer. The mutated cancer cells need glucose to survive -- they can't rely on alternative energy sources like healthy cells can. Since they lack the metabolic flexibility of normal cells, the cancerous growth can be greatly slowed, weakened, and even reversed without the use of drugs.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 11:26 PM
#115
To anyone looking for useful info in this thread, please avoid Chili's posts and anything related to Cal in/out bro-science.
If you really want to lose weight properly and, most importantly, keep it off, then PM me. Take advice from people who have actually done it, not x+x=y bro-science.
If you really want to lose weight properly and, most importantly, keep it off, then PM me. Take advice from people who have actually done it, not x+x=y bro-science.
Bro science is claiming all these foods/methods/meals/blah blah blah are the way to do it, with NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
Your body can be SCIENTIFCALLY measured to see how much energy it used in a day. You can then eat below that to lose weight.
If you understand your BMR in the first place, you will lose the weight, and keep it off since you would know eating more than you need makes you gain the weight. Duh.
I find the statement about "people who have actually done it" to be hilarious because you don't know me or anything I've done.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 11:33 PM
#116
Nobody is arguing that you'll lose weight if you consume fewer calories than you use.
Also, nobody cares. It's still stupid, inefficient, and unhealthy to ignore macronutrient and micronutrient balance. Go eat your donuts and multivitamins and let us discuss interesting things.
Also, nobody cares. It's still stupid, inefficient, and unhealthy to ignore macronutrient and micronutrient balance. Go eat your donuts and multivitamins and let us discuss interesting things.
What I'm saying will work with a ketogenic diet, a paleo diet, an atkins diet, whatever you want because it relies on scientific fact. All your "methods" are someone trying to sell something and take way too much time.
I cook for myself a lot, but I don't think its the holy frickin grail of "health."
I'll stick with my science of energy balance, while you guys can stick with your unscientific claims of health and feeling crappy blah blah blah.
Reply
0
0
04-17-2013, 11:36 PM
#117
My experience is with the anti-inflammatory - and it *works* very well when you figure out what foods mess up your particular body.
If my GF eats half of a potato or 1/3 of a sweet potato cooked at home (fried, mashed, baked, however) with NO OTHER DIET ALTERATIONS, her face/shoulders will break out, and she'll gain 3 pounds overnight. CICO doesn't 'splain that...
She didn't know that potatoes fucked her up either, until she started rocking this diet, because she ate them all the time, her body was in a constant state of repair. Once it healed and she tested potatoes in the form of ***a handful of salt-free potato chips***, it was like "WHOA" overnight. The next morning she was up 4 lbs on the scale, and breathing fire at me for putting her on "this damn diet that doesn't work"... some point that day, while she was at work, she had an epiphany: she gained 4 lbs not because the diet didn't work, but rather because the diet *did* work. The anti-inflammatory + testing diet showed her what potatoes were really doing to her - and now she gets to make a choice when she's eating food - eat delicious potatoes and breakout / gain weight, or opt for the onion rings instead. Onion rings, for her, are completely harmless. She does still choose french fries or chips on occasion, but she knows what the consequences are.
Her other devil is black beans - which will give her painful stomach cramps for 6-8 hours; and there are many other problems foods for her which don't cause as significant a problem, but still work against her for weight loss.
If my GF eats half of a potato or 1/3 of a sweet potato cooked at home (fried, mashed, baked, however) with NO OTHER DIET ALTERATIONS, her face/shoulders will break out, and she'll gain 3 pounds overnight. CICO doesn't 'splain that...
She didn't know that potatoes fucked her up either, until she started rocking this diet, because she ate them all the time, her body was in a constant state of repair. Once it healed and she tested potatoes in the form of ***a handful of salt-free potato chips***, it was like "WHOA" overnight. The next morning she was up 4 lbs on the scale, and breathing fire at me for putting her on "this damn diet that doesn't work"... some point that day, while she was at work, she had an epiphany: she gained 4 lbs not because the diet didn't work, but rather because the diet *did* work. The anti-inflammatory + testing diet showed her what potatoes were really doing to her - and now she gets to make a choice when she's eating food - eat delicious potatoes and breakout / gain weight, or opt for the onion rings instead. Onion rings, for her, are completely harmless. She does still choose french fries or chips on occasion, but she knows what the consequences are.
Her other devil is black beans - which will give her painful stomach cramps for 6-8 hours; and there are many other problems foods for her which don't cause as significant a problem, but still work against her for weight loss.
Reply
0
0
04-18-2013, 10:29 AM
#120
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Science usually ***** us when it comes to dietary concerns.
Here is my dinner from last night:
two thai chicken sausages
a phat heap of steamed dark greens (kale, chard, collards, I forget mix)
smashed up sweet potato with a blap of butter on it.
so tasty.
Here is my dinner from last night:
two thai chicken sausages
a phat heap of steamed dark greens (kale, chard, collards, I forget mix)
smashed up sweet potato with a blap of butter on it.
so tasty.
Reply
0
0
